Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
---Claim 1 L9 (at the midpoint) recites:
“ and inner surface ”.
Notice the lack of the article “an”.
The Office suggests that the recitation of claim 1 L9 is amended to:
“ and an inner surface ”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
---Claim 1 L11-12 (at the end of L11 and beginning of L12) recites the limitation:
“ the one or more arm ”.
Notice that claim 1 L8 previously recite “an arm” which makes it unclear and indefinite if the applicant is attempting to positively recite a single “arm” or if the applicant is attempting to claim a plurality of arms. It is further noted that dependent claims (see at least claim 11) claim “the arm”. The Office will assume that the applicant is attempting to positively claim a single arm.
If so, the Office suggests that the recitation of claim 1 L11-12 is amended as follows:
“ the arm ”.
---Claims 18-19 recite the following:
18. The method of Claim 17 wherein the body comprises a proximal portion and a distal portion, and providing the second valve comprises coupling the proximal and distal portions of the body together with the second valve therebetween.
19. The method of Claim 17, wherein inserting the protrusion of the second connector into the insert further comprises engaging an arm of the second connector against the housing.
First, notice the lack of antecedent basis for “the body”, “the second valve” and “the housing”. Second, due to a lack of context and structural relationships, it is unclear how the highlighted limitations relate to the rest of the claimed components. Are these components unrelated to the first and second connector or are they a part of it and if so, to which one? Most notably, see that claim 18 is unclear how any of the claim limitations relate to any of the previously recited components to the point that is unclear if any of these component are related to the actual device being claimed. Based on the disclosure, the Office will assume that for claim 18 that the second connector comprises a body and a second valve coupled within the body of the second connector and that for claim 19 that the first connector comprises a housing. The Office suggests claims 18-19 or intervening claim 17 is amended to provide proper antecedent basis and proper structural interconnection for the limitations as claimed in claims 18-19.
---Claim(s) 2-16 and 20, being dependent on any of the preceding claim(s) above, inherit the same deficiencies as the parent/intervening claim(s) and as such is/are rejected in the same manner, see the rejection(s) above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1/a2 as being anticipated by Kuriyama WO-2022149339.
Regarding claims 17-20, in making and/or using the device of Kuriyama WO-2022149339, Kuriyama teaches in Figs. 1-17 (see at least Figs. 4 and 9-14) the limitations of:
---Claim 17. A method for providing a fluid connector system (see at least Figs. 4 and 9-14), the method comprising providing a first connector (2), a second connector (1), a first valve (70), and an insert (62), wherein the first and second connectors are coupled together by inserting the first valve into a proximal housing opening (see the forward facing opening that receives a portion of the valve 70 and insert 62) of the first connector, inserting the insert into the proximal housing opening such that the first valve is retained between the proximal housing opening and the insert (see at least Figs. 4 and 9-14), and inserting a protrusion (46) of the second connector into the insert to engage against the first valve to form a fluid passageway through the first and second connectors (see at least Figs. 4 and 9-14, in particular Fig. 14).
---Claim 18. The method of Claim 17 wherein the body (assumed to be the body of the second connector 1) comprises a proximal portion (10) and a distal portion (40), and providing the second valve (assumed to be valve 50 of the second connector 1) comprises coupling the proximal and distal portions of the body together with the second valve therebetween (see at least Figs. 4 and 9-14).
---Claim 19. The method of Claim 17, wherein inserting the protrusion of the second connector into the insert further comprises engaging an arm (31b) of the second connector against the housing (assumed to be housing of the first connector see housing assembly 60 which includes insert 62 having a flange provided on groove 65 that engages arm 31b).
---Claim 20. The method of Claim 19, wherein engaging the arm of the second connector against the housing comprises the arm engaging against a radially outward extending flange (see the flange provided on groove 65 that engages arm 31b) of the housing.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent Jadhav US-12403295.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the patent either explicitly or implicitly anticipates all the limitations of the present application and/or any missing detail would have been obvious over the claims of the patent themselves or the cited prior art, notice that the claims of the application closely mirrors those of the patent with the difference being slight changes in the order of the components claimed and that the claims of the application are broader than those of the patent. Following the rationale in In re Goodman cited in the preceding paragraph, where the applicant has once been granted a patent containing a claim for the specific or narrower invention, the applicant may not then obtain a second patent with a claim for the generic or broader invention without first submitting an appropriate terminal disclaimer. Note that since the claims of the application are anticipated by the claims of the patent and since anticipation is the epitome of obviousness, then the claims of the application are obvious over the claims of the patent. Additionally, any missing structure or detail would be obvious over the cited prior art with at least Fangrow US-9933094, Jones US-10864362, Phillips US-10315025, Shaw US-20060129109 and Kuriyama WO-2022149339 teaching of various examples of valved couplings used in medical fluidic systems wherein each connector comprises a resilient valve and wherein at least one connector include some form of stem/post/protrusion that is inserted into the other connector to aid in guiding fluid flow and opening the valves; additionally, these references teaches of some form of latching arm one connector and an engaging flange on the other connector as part of a break-away latching system wherein the connectors are intentionally designed to break once a pulling force threshold is reached which aids in preventing harm to the patient and/or damage to any sensitive equipment fluidly connected to the connectors while also preventing leakage when disconnected due to the valves achieving dry-disconnect by automatically shutting off flow when the connectors are uncoupled.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
---Reference A (relevant but not “prior” art under US Patent Laws):
Jadhav US-12403295.
---References B (Breakaway Couplings):
Jones US-10864362, Jones US-10655768, Phillips US-10315025 and Erskine US-5820614.
---References C (Check Valves):
Bonnal US-10625071, Harton US-10207100, Williams US-8974437, Grimm US-8758307 and
Hofmann WO-2010127461.
References D (Valved Medical Couplings):
Fangrow US-9933094, Diodati US-8899267, Lynn US-6171287,
Shaw US-20060129109,
Kuriyama WO-2022149339 and Tsai EP-3954355.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID COLON-MORALES, whose telephone number is 571-270-1741 and fax number is 571-270-2741. If the applicant has authorized internet communications via the filling of form PTO/SB/439, the examiner can be reached via email at david.colon-morales@uspto.gov , email communication is not permitted if the applicant has not filed an authorization for internet communication (see MPEP 502.03 for more details on internet communications). The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday (7:30AM-3:30PM EST).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisors can be reached by phone. KENNETH RINEHART can be reached at 571-272-4881 or CRAIG SCHNEIDER can be reached at 571-272-3607. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DAVID COLON-MORALES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
